"I don't know what the policy of the administration is . . ." (Nikki Haley, US ambassador to the UN).

After decades of incompetent US foreign policy leadership, are Americans doomed to seeing more of the US opposing its best interests in West Asia, and kissing up to barbaric Muslim honchos in the mode of Bush, Obama, etc?

Its a different bunch of Muslims. oBUMa favored the Iranians. Trump favors the Saudis.

It seems to me that without Obama's Iranian deal the default is the Saudis and with it America can barter.

"It's a different bunch of Muslims." Aren't the honchos of all the bunches of Muslims in the region (excepting the Kurds) a "bunch" of barbarians? Given that, why be sanguine ref outcomes bartering with the Saudis? Especially considering the proven incompetency of the American foreign policy apparatus . . .

"I don't know what the policy of the administration is . . ." (Nikki Haley, US ambassador to the UN).

After decades of incompetent US foreign policy leadership, are Americans doomed to seeing more of the US opposing its best interests in West Asia, and kissing up to barbaric Muslim honchos in the mode of Bush, Obama, etc?

Its a different bunch of Muslims. oBUMa favored the Iranians. Trump favors the Saudis.

It seems to me that without Obama's Iranian deal the default is the Saudis and with it America can barter.

"It's a different bunch of Muslims." Aren't the honchos of all the bunches of Muslims in the region (excepting the Kurds) a "bunch" of barbarians? Given that, why be sanguine ref outcomes bartering with the Saudis? Especially considering the proven incompetency of the American foreign policy apparatus . . .

You know the answer, I'll say it though: oil supply.

As you may recall I don't personally think it's worth it but maintaining relationships with two oil powers that hate each other going back centuries is an understandable foreign policy position. One might say Iran supports terrorism but so does the KSA, so that ship sailed some time ago.

"I don't know what the policy of the administration is . . ." (Nikki Haley, US ambassador to the UN).

After decades of incompetent US foreign policy leadership, are Americans doomed to seeing more of the US opposing its best interests in West Asia, and kissing up to barbaric Muslim honchos in the mode of Bush, Obama, etc?

Its a different bunch of Muslims. oBUMa favored the Iranians. Trump favors the Saudis.

It seems to me that without Obama's Iranian deal the default is the Saudis and with it America can barter.

"It's a different bunch of Muslims." Aren't the honchos of all the bunches of Muslims in the region (excepting the Kurds) a "bunch" of barbarians? Given that, why be sanguine ref outcomes bartering with the Saudis? Especially considering the proven incompetency of the American foreign policy apparatus . . .

Both bunches are bad. It is the job of the US President to decide which bunch is less bad and better for US interests. It is like supporting Stalin against Hitler. Both Stalin and Hitler were evil Socialist dictators. But the Allies chose to support Stalin against Hitler.

Hitler was defeated and almost immediately, Stalin became US enemy.

Then during the Soviet-Afghan war, Stalin's heirs were fighting against Muslim fanatics in Afghanistan. Both bunches were bad. The US, under Reagan, had to choose between them. The US decided to support the Muslim fanatics.

The Soviet Union was defeated. Almost immediately, Muslim fanatics were at war with the US.

Now two bad bunches of people, Muslim fanatics (Sunni version) led by Saudi Arabia are fighting against Muslim fanatics (Shiite version) led by Iran. In this Civil War of Muslim fanatics or extremists, where do US interests lie?

Both bunches are bad. It is the job of the US President to decide which bunch is less bad and better for US interests. It is like supporting Stalin against Hitler. Both Stalin and Hitler were evil Socialist dictators. But the Allies chose to support Stalin against Hitler.

Hitler was defeated and almost immediately, Stalin became US enemy.

Then during the Soviet-Afghan war, Stalin's heirs were fighting against Muslim fanatics in Afghanistan. Both bunches were bad. The US, under Reagan, had to choose between them. The US decided to support the Muslim fanatics.

The Soviet Union was defeated. Almost immediately, Muslim fanatics were at war with the US.

Now two bad bunches of people, Muslim fanatics (Sunni version) led by Saudi Arabia are fighting against Muslim fanatics (Shiite version) led by Iran. In this Civil War of Muslim fanatics or extremists, where do US interests lie?

The US President must decide who to kill first.

Most of the times the interest of the US - and ours - would be for the US not to interfere in foreign conflicts. But that's beyond the understanding of far too many Americans...

Both bunches are bad. It is the job of the US President to decide which bunch is less bad and better for US interests. It is like supporting Stalin against Hitler. Both Stalin and Hitler were evil Socialist dictators. But the Allies chose to support Stalin against Hitler.

Hitler was defeated and almost immediately, Stalin became US enemy.

Then during the Soviet-Afghan war, Stalin's heirs were fighting against Muslim fanatics in Afghanistan. Both bunches were bad. The US, under Reagan, had to choose between them. The US decided to support the Muslim fanatics.

The Soviet Union was defeated. Almost immediately, Muslim fanatics were at war with the US.

Now two bad bunches of people, Muslim fanatics (Sunni version) led by Saudi Arabia are fighting against Muslim fanatics (Shiite version) led by Iran. In this Civil War of Muslim fanatics or extremists, where do US interests lie?

The US President must decide who to kill first.

Most of the times the interest of the US - and ours - would be for the US not to interfere in foreign conflicts. But that's beyond the understanding of far too many Americans...

Well. I think it was in our interests for the US to intervene in Vietnam. It may have saved us from the aggression of Socialist dictatorship like N Vietnam. I think it was in the interest of Europeans not to be occupied by the National Socialist dictatorship of Hitler. Or the Socialist dictatorship of the Soviet Union. US forces protected W Europe from that and also helped the evil Soviet Union to collapse.

Both bunches are bad. It is the job of the US President to decide which bunch is less bad and better for US interests. It is like supporting Stalin against Hitler. Both Stalin and Hitler were evil Socialist dictators. But the Allies chose to support Stalin against Hitler.

Hitler was defeated and almost immediately, Stalin became US enemy.

Then during the Soviet-Afghan war, Stalin's heirs were fighting against Muslim fanatics in Afghanistan. Both bunches were bad. The US, under Reagan, had to choose between them. The US decided to support the Muslim fanatics.

The Soviet Union was defeated. Almost immediately, Muslim fanatics were at war with the US.

Now two bad bunches of people, Muslim fanatics (Sunni version) led by Saudi Arabia are fighting against Muslim fanatics (Shiite version) led by Iran. In this Civil War of Muslim fanatics or extremists, where do US interests lie?

The US President must decide who to kill first.

Most of the times the interest of the US - and ours - would be for the US not to interfere in foreign conflicts. But that's beyond the understanding of far too many Americans...

Well. I think it was in our interests for the US to intervene in Vietnam. It may have saved us from the aggression of Socialist dictatorship like N Vietnam. I think it was in the interest of Europeans not to be occupied by the National Socialist dictatorship of Hitler. Or the Socialist dictatorship of the Soviet Union. US forces protected W Europe from that and also helped the evil Soviet Union to collapse.

Stopping nazi Germany was the only justifiable war. Stopping Pol Pot would have been another one, but in the end it were the "socialist" Vietnamese who did it...

Both bunches are bad. It is the job of the US President to decide which bunch is less bad and better for US interests. It is like supporting Stalin against Hitler. Both Stalin and Hitler were evil Socialist dictators. But the Allies chose to support Stalin against Hitler.

Hitler was defeated and almost immediately, Stalin became US enemy.

Then during the Soviet-Afghan war, Stalin's heirs were fighting against Muslim fanatics in Afghanistan. Both bunches were bad. The US, under Reagan, had to choose between them. The US decided to support the Muslim fanatics.

The Soviet Union was defeated. Almost immediately, Muslim fanatics were at war with the US.

Now two bad bunches of people, Muslim fanatics (Sunni version) led by Saudi Arabia are fighting against Muslim fanatics (Shiite version) led by Iran. In this Civil War of Muslim fanatics or extremists, where do US interests lie?

The US President must decide who to kill first.

Most of the times the interest of the US - and ours - would be for the US not to interfere in foreign conflicts. But that's beyond the understanding of far too many Americans...

Well. I think it was in our interests for the US to intervene in Vietnam. It may have saved us from the aggression of Socialist dictatorship like N Vietnam. I think it was in the interest of Europeans not to be occupied by the National Socialist dictatorship of Hitler. Or the Socialist dictatorship of the Soviet Union. US forces protected W Europe from that and also helped the evil Soviet Union to collapse.

Stopping nazi Germany was the only justifiable war. Stopping Pol Pot would have been another one, but in the end it were the "socialist" Vietnamese who did it...

If the US and remained in Vietnam, there would have been no Pol Pot regime in Cambodia. The Socialist Vietnamese regime was also terrible though not as bad as Pol Pot. Millions of Vietnamese fled in leaky boats to escape Socialism.

You like the war against Hitler because it helped Russia to survive. The struggle against Russian Socialism and its allies was also a legitimate cause. The Soviets were as bad as the Nazis.

Both bunches are bad. It is the job of the US President to decide which bunch is less bad and better for US interests. It is like supporting Stalin against Hitler. Both Stalin and Hitler were evil Socialist dictators. But the Allies chose to support Stalin against Hitler.

Hitler was defeated and almost immediately, Stalin became US enemy.

Then during the Soviet-Afghan war, Stalin's heirs were fighting against Muslim fanatics in Afghanistan. Both bunches were bad. The US, under Reagan, had to choose between them. The US decided to support the Muslim fanatics.

The Soviet Union was defeated. Almost immediately, Muslim fanatics were at war with the US.

Now two bad bunches of people, Muslim fanatics (Sunni version) led by Saudi Arabia are fighting against Muslim fanatics (Shiite version) led by Iran. In this Civil War of Muslim fanatics or extremists, where do US interests lie?

The US President must decide who to kill first.

Most of the times the interest of the US - and ours - would be for the US not to interfere in foreign conflicts. But that's beyond the understanding of far too many Americans...

The distinction that's lost on most people is that there's a huge difference between what's in the interest of the U.S. establishment and what's in the interest of most everyday Americans.

Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

An account of the blundering Obama/Kerry/Hillary efforts to reach a deal with the Arabs and Israel. The concept of America supporting its friends and opposing its enemies seems to have been lost on those jackasses.

An account of the blundering Obama/Kerry/Hillary efforts to reach a deal with the Arabs and Israel. The concept of America supporting its friends and opposing its enemies seems to have been lost on those jackasses.